JAI MAHAVIR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. versus PANCHAL KESHAVLAL NARBHERAM & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 894 · Decided: 10-04-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. KHALID · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAi MAHAVIR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 
v. 
PANCHAL KESHAVLAL NARBHERAM & ORS. 
APRIL 10, 1987 
[G.L. OZA AND v: KHALID, JJ: I 
, 
· Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961-Sections 96 and 150-
0rder passed by the Registrar-Whether subject to revision by 
Tribunal-W~ether Registrar competent to review his earlier decision. 
c 
The first respondent institnted a proceeding nnder Section 96(1) ---.J"\ 
of the Gujarat Cooperative. Societies Act, 1961, for setting· aside .the 
Resolution, expelling him . from the membership or the appellant 
Siiciety. The said resolution had been duly approved by the Registrar or 
··societies under Section 36 or the· Act. The dispute was referred by the 
~ 
Registrar under Section 98(1) or the Act to his nominee for a decision, 
D 
who dismissed the claim. · 
· 
· ' 
· 
·, 
. The Tribunal allowed the appeal ·or first respondent and reman· 
ded the matter to the Registrar's noninee for a fresh decision. During 
the trial, upon an application made by the appellant Society under 
sub'section (2) or Section 96 that the dispute <!id not snrvive as the 
E 
expulsion had already been decided in the collateral proceedings and 
the Registrar had accorded his approval nnder Section 36 or the Act, 
· the District Registrar held that the f"irst respondent was precluded from 
contending that the lmpngned Resolution was illegal since he had not 
preferred any appeal against the approval by the Registrar, that the 
doctrine of res' judicata was attracted and, therefore, there was no 
F 
dispnte in existence between the parties.· 
This order was taken np in revision under Section 150 sub-clause 
(9) of the Act before the Tribunal, which held that the District Registrar 
had no jnrisdiction to re-open the question as to whether or not the 
matter referred by first respondent was a dispute within the meaning or 
G 
sub-section (1) or Section 96 at the subsequent stage, and having already 
decided that the matter constituted a dispnte nnder Section 96(1) at an 
earlier stage, the powers under sub-section (2) or Section .96 were 
exhausted and he was not competent to review his earlier decision. 
In appeal, the High Court held that the Tribnnal was right in 
H 
holding that the Registrar had no jurisdiction to revise or review his 
--
894 
~'-)
-
).J,\ 
( 
' --
;.../, 
A-
l 
~ 
I ( 
' 
~ 
JAi MAHAVIR SOCIETY v. PANCHAL 
895 
earlier decision that the dispute raised by the first respondent fell 
A 
within the ambit of the description of dispute within the meaning of 
sub-section (1) of Section 96, and that it had reYisional jurisdiction; and 
also granted special leave to appeal. 
In appeal before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the 
B 
appellant that when a dispute was referred to the Registrar, and he 
ultimately gave a decision on merits it was no doubt appealable but 
when the Registrar entertained the dispute and sent it to his nominee, 
that was an order against which a revision lay to the Tribunal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
c 
HELD: I. Clause (9) of Section 150 confers jurisdiction on the 
Tribunal to call for and examine the record of any proceeding. The 
word 'proceeding' here is qualified by the phrase, in which appeal lies 
to it. After final disposal of these proceedings i.e. decision of the dispute 
by the Registrar or by his nominee, an appeal will lie to the Tribunal and, 
D 
therefore, the High Court was right in holding that the Tribunal had juris-
diction to call for and examine the record of such proceedings. [899D-E] 
The phrase 'any proceedings in which an appeal lies to it' in 
clause (9) of Section 150 makes it clear that if the proceedings where the 
final order is appealable, then it could not be said that these are the 
E 
proceedings where an appeal lies to the Tribunal, and it is in these 
proceedings that the jurisdiction has been conferred on the Tribunal to 
call for the record and examine the matter. [899E-G I 
2. When the respondent submitted his dispute to the Registrar 
and the Registrar, after examining the matter, came to the conclusion 
F 
that it was a dispute which could be entertained within the scope of 
Section 96 and, therefore, referred it to his nominee for decision, there 
is no doubt that the Registrar exercised jurisdiction under Section 96 
and, therefore, the High Court was right in coming to the conclusion 
that once the Registrar took this decision, he had no power to review his 
order. [900A-C] 
G 
Krishnarao Bakaramji Ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.